CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
KEVIN BROTT, et al.,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant-Appellee.
   No. 16-1466
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Michigan at Grand Rapids.
No. 1:15-cv-00038—Janet T. Neff, District Judge.
Argued: February 2, 2017
Decided and Filed: May 31, 2017
Before: BATCHELDER, ROGERS, and WHITE, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

ALICE M. BATCHELDER, Circuit Judge. Twenty-three Michigan landowners filed suit in federal district court seeking compensation in excess of $10,000 for the United States’s alleged taking of their land for use as a public recreational trail. The landowners assert that they are entitled to have their claims considered in an Article III court and by a jury. However, Congress has acted constitutionally in bestowing on the Court of Federal Claims, an Article I court, exclusive jurisdiction over the landowners’ compensation claims and removing the right to a jury trial for claims brought in the Court of Federal Claims and in the district court under the Little Tucker Act. Therefore, we must affirm the district court’s dismissal of the landowners’ complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.



CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
FURNISS HARKNESS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
SECRETARY OF THE NAVY,
Defendant-Appellee.
   No. 16-5396
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Tennessee at Memphis.
No. 2:13-cv-03003—Sheryl H. Lipman, District Judge.
Argued: January 31, 2017
Decided and Filed: May 31, 2017
Before: GIBBONS, ROGERS, and McKEAGUE, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

JULIA SMITH GIBBONS, Circuit Judge. Retired Navy chaplain Furniss Harkness sued the Secretary of the Navy (Secretary), alleging that prior to his retirement, the Navy denied him multiple promotions and duty assignments in violation of the First Amendment. On this basis, he claims that the Secretary’s refusal to convene special selection boards (SSBs) to reconsider him for promotion was arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law under 10 U.S.C. § 14502. The district court granted the Secretary’s motion to dismiss and motion for summary judgment on all claims. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.